Why are we hating all the men?

retro:electro

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes so you judged them morally. That's what you are condemning me and many other for doing, assuming that it was true, you've been saying that for several posts and now we see a turn around, but oh no it's different for others, and specifically different for you, you are a special case, yes gotcha.

Revenge porn is abhorrent and it is normal for people to react strongly against it wow we are actually getting somewhere.

You were proven wrong, and actually I think you should apologise to Wibbs for assuming otherwise. You saw something you thought was scandalous, put the blinkers on and didn't look at the bigger picture and acted totally irrationally. Those seem to be the characteristics of a feminist alright.

Zulu

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes so you judged them morally. ...

Lol, you are so fu(king wrong it's funny.

This would be a good time for you to put down the shovel.

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

You were proven wrong, and actually I think you should apologise to Wibbs for assuming otherwise. You saw something you thought was scandalous, put the blinkers on and didn't look at the bigger picture and acted totally irrationally. Those seem to be the characteristics of a feminist alright.

In his own words somebody who believed it was 'morally dubious' and should have waited for more evidence. He didn't. To err is human. No apology required.

.........

Samaris wrote: »

I may be completely wrong, but I seem to mostly see people rating journalism "good" when they agree with what's been said.

Absolutely not. A good article educates and informs, it lays out all the facts, and arguments, including the ones that the journalist might not like, and people make up their own mind. The journalism we are normally presented with now, takes only one or two facts at best, spins them, and then shoves the opinion and agenda permitted by the billionaire media corporation's owner down the readers throat. I go out of my way to read well written articles and facts that challenge my initial opinions and assumptions, and as a result I get a much better understanding of issues. I don't want to hear an echo chamber, but it's getting harder and harder to find reliable fully truthful journalism. Then again maybe I'm in a minority in that regard, and if I am, that would explain a lot.

cloudatlas

Zulu wrote: »

Lol, you are so fu(king wrong it's funny.

This would be a good time for you to put down the shovel.

I wasn't proven wrong, he did judge them based on the information that was given at the time that's something if you go back through the thread he is accusing feminists of doing, men were doing it too, but that's inconvenient on a thread like this.

Demforeigners

cloudatlas wrote: »

I wasn't proven wrong, he did judge them based on the information that was given at the time that's something if you go back through the thread he is accusing feminists of doing, men were doing it too, but that's inconvenient on a thread like this.

Your tears say more than real evidence ever could.

Feminism in its modern form is a discriminatory hate group. They are all United by their collective hatred for men and not for the betterment of women everywhere, but to create and sustain a matriarchal society. Thankfully it's confined to the Internet for now but who knows how long this will last as these influences are creeping in to our educational facilities and our national newspapers are giving a platform to highly toxic but influential hatebags.

The more ridicule the better I say before they do real and lasting damage to men everywhere.

I believe in real equality and I will always stand up for what is right for both genders. I am therefore an egalitarian and if you believe in real equality you will be too.

.........

B0jangles wrote: »

I'd just like to point out that yet again a thread which might actually have started out talking about issues facing men in the modern world has turned into a thread to talk about how terrible and ****ty feminism is; with a fun sideline on how women are crap at sport!

Serious question: Does the modern men's movement and those who support it have any idea or plans for how to improve the lot of unhappy men beyond getting feminists to shut up?

Do any of you have any original ideas for creating support networks for abused men, or for helping men struggling to cope with changed societal expectations of them, to throw out a couple of starting points?

Feminists saw and still see societies with a wide range of inequalities and fought to change them; as far as I can see men's rights activists see a changing world and want to make it all stop - a fundamental difference which I think has led to the conspicuous absence of ideas the movement has for positive actions which would actually help men.

Have you ever thought that human beings should be seeking equality be for all regardless of their sex ? Since when should women only look about "women's rights" and men look about "men's rights". How about the same rights for everyone ?

cloudatlas

Demforeigners wrote: »

Your tears say more than real evidence ever could.

Feminism in its modern form is a discriminatory hate group. They are all United by their collective hatred for men and not for the betterment of women everywhere, but to create and sustain a matriarchal society. Thankfully it's confined to the Internet for now but who knows how long this will last as these influences are creeping in to our educational facilities and our national newspapers are giving a platform to highly toxic but influential hatebags.

The more ridicule the better I say before they do real and lasting damage to men everywhere.

I believe in real equality and I will always stand up for what is right for both genders. I am therefore an egalitarian and if you believe in real equality you will be too.

Fairly sure womans groups have a longer history than that, confined to the internet? Groups lobbying for women's right to vote were formed in late-19th and early-20th centuries.

You forgot the bit about them trying to take over and gain supremacy.

What tears, real evidence? what are you going on about?

Demforeigners

cloudatlas wrote: »

Fairly sure womans groups have a longer history than that, confined to the internet? Groups lobbying for women's right to vote were formed in late-19th and early-20th centuries.

You forgot the bit about them trying to take over and gain supremacy.

What tears, real evidence? what are you going on about?

Hence MODERN feminist. Early feminists are heroes to me.

retro:electro

Demforeigners wrote: »

Hence MODERN feminist. Early feminists are heroes to me.

I'd rather be a Scientologist than a modern feminist. At least they keep to themselves

koumi

the hate is ironical

cloudatlas

Demforeigners wrote: »

Hence MODERN feminist. Early feminists are heroes to me.

Don't think you've read through the thread. You haven't responded to any points I've made directly just made a sweeping generalisation about how you don't like some feminists, carbon copy of the O.P post and adds nothing to a discussion.

Demforeigners

koumi wrote: »

the hate is ironical

Stupid ironic al with all his hatred! *shakes fist*

koumi

that's the joke

RabbleRouser2k

cloudatlas wrote: »

...so I feel they've discounted feminism as a result.

Just to say because it always is brought up, many posters may not like how Louise O'Neil puts herself across (these threads always start discussing her sex life as well, as if that has any bearing) but her book has encouraged many woman who have been sexually assaulted, raped to seek help so for me I feel that she has done a lot of good (i'll be asked how do I know this, she says she gets letters all the time from women saying her book caused them to contact the rape crisis centre, Louise has gotten advice from them and appeared on panel shows with representatives from that organisation etc., her book was a bestseller, it tackles an important topic).

Thank you for pointing me towards the National Women's Council Of Ireland Ltd, I've subscribed to them as I'm sure other posters on this thread have done the same.

Feminism discounts itsself by creating a problem whilst ignoring genuine ones.

When a rape occurs where the 'straight white man' is not at fault-they ignore it. As was the case where a young woman was so violently raped (in ireland) by a non-irish individual, where the injuries inflicted on her were so extreme, she will be unable to give birth naturally, even having problems with menopause in later years. It doesn't fit their narrative, so they say nothing.

On the other hand, when Ched Evans was found not guilty on retrial, they still demand he be referred to as guilty.

She mentions her sex life-it's not us that bring it up.

She claims she gets letters, just as she claims there was a sex ring in UCD-there is evidence for neither. I won't believe it unless I see it, and I don't believe it. I find her book just enforced the 'victim' narrative-puts people off of coming forward. Her 'documentary' was also a total bias fest-on her own part. As if we should automatically convict anyone accused of a crime.

Oh stay away from NWCI, they are TERF's or crazy. Mostly both.

Foxhound38 wrote: »

The problem is that many feminists are ...

I edited out your post because I didn't disagree with anything you said. Just wanted to say that without copying the original post.

cloudatlas wrote: »

Hmmm they found no evidence for the case in UCD but there have been other cases like the PWC case where a group of men in the office were sending around pictures of the female interns and rating them, you don't have to look far to find examples. I also remember men on here saying that the feminists who discussed the UCD case should apologise and I thought why should they have to apologise, they assumed it was true as did many members of the public, nobody was publicly defamed why should they apologise, if it had been true their reaction was the right reaction and a normal one that many other people had.

Because many of them CONTINUED to peddle the story, months after it was proven false-because the SU's pushed for 'consent' classes-when they were based on a lie.
That's why folks want an apology.

Wibbs

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes so you judged them morally. That's what you are condemning me and many other for doing, assuming that it was true, you've been saying that for several posts and now we see a turn around, but oh no it's different for others, and specifically different for you, you are a special case, yes gotcha.

Again; You --- Country Mile --- Point. I suppose if the evidence doesn't fit the worldview, the worldview adjusts accordingly. Common among every stripe of extremist. It's one of the defining traits. The usual progression with extremist thinking is: State case - Twist evidence to suit - When challenged and having no decent rebuttal - insert irony bypass - change direction like a yachtsman in a typhoon - Claim oppression(added feels for bonus points) - kill debate.

Revenge porn is abhorrent and it is normal for people to react strongly against it wow we are actually getting somewhere.

Let's state the bleedin obvious in an attempt to claim some pyrrhic victory. In other news water is wet.

cloudatlas wrote: »

In his own words somebody who believed it was 'morally dubious' and should have waited for more evidence. He didn't. To err is human. No apology required.

So in your philosophy erring against people is OK and one has no responsibility to wronged people when the facts become clearer? Man, you really don't get this personal responsibility for actions thing at all. It's like a genuine blindspot, like trying to describe green to the colour blind.

OK let's try and tease this out....

1) I did NOT say I saw someone who believed it at first as "morally dubious". That's the point you're missing/avoiding.

2) I did say that when the evidence showed it was a falsehood, those who previously were baying(and primal screaming) for blood against the wronged, should have acknowledged this. An apology would be a stretch too far I suppose as the mantra goes women are always victims and never wrong.

You haven't responded to any points I've made directly just made a sweeping generalisation about how you don't like some feminists, carbon copy of the O.P post and adds nothing to a discussion.

You are actually joking here? I hope.

Good god, debating with a "feminist" mindset is akin to trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

RabbleRouser2k

Samaris wrote: »

Did anyone actually have their mind changed by an article? I may be completely wrong, but I seem to mostly see people rating journalism "good" when they agree with what's been said.

I've agreed with the folks who get the most criticism online-the Ian O'Doherty's, the Niamh Horan's, The KEvin Myer's, and so on. The rest...no, usually they are horrendously written. The amount of crap that gets printed--the Holly Carpenter article from a year or two, where it read like a 5 year old's essay on her summer holidays were rightfully mocked. But it's not the only time such crap has been written.

I could name a few opinion columnists-but it's the usual bunch, so no point really.

Deleted User wrote: »

Even at that, in a lot of ways to me it seems like there's an attempt to infantilise the men also. Came across an article about how it's because of "immature" men that women are having kids later in life. It goes on about men not being settled in their careers being "immature", which I don't quite understand, I would've thought not having a kid until firm structures to support a family were in place was a pretty mature, responsible attitude to have.
And of course it mentioned young women making 8% more than men but saw no issue with it. :pac:

More and more young women are also seeking to study more (PHD's, doctorates etc), as in I could argue that because they don't envision themselves getting married, or if they do, they don't envision marriage right now. Many are studying up until their late 20s, early 30s.

You do get quite a few doctors who do admonish women who thought they could have it all at 40-but that's just facts, it's not misogny. It's just cold, cruel biology. Fertility drops in women after 35/36, that men can go and have kids well into old age, and beyond is just biology-its rooted in evolution.

Personally, I never envisioned marriage for me-as a male. Nor did I envision kids or anything like that.

cloudatlas wrote: »

I don't remember them continuing to write articles about the UCD story after it was judged not to be true maybe you can link to the articles.

There was an article LoN wrote in December, I believe, about 7 months after the UCD president said 'we have found sweet FA evidence regarding this UCD fb page'. (Couple that with not a single woman coming forward to say their images were on the group. All that was found was a scantily clad image of some model that downloaded from the web. It was taken down, so no more image. But yeah, there was nothing there.)
Well, Lon talked about her pride in her tweet about UCD being shared and retweeted across social media.
This despite it could very well have ruined people's careers. But does she care?
Nope.

cloudatlas

Wibbs wrote: »

Again; You --- Country Mile --- Point. I suppose if the evidence doesn't fit the worldview, the worldview adjusts accordingly. Common among every stripe of extremist. It's one of the defining traits. The usual progression with extremist thinking is: State case - Twist evidence to suit - When challenged and having no decent rebuttal - insert irony bypass - change direction like a yachtsman in a typhoon - Claim oppression(added feels for bonus points) - kill debate.

Let's state the bleedin obvious in an attempt to claim some pyrrhic victory. In other news water is wet.

So in your philosophy erring against people is OK and one has no responsibility to wronged people when the facts become clearer? Man, you really don't get this personal responsibility for actions thing at all. It's like a genuine blindspot, like trying to describe green to the colour blind.

OK let's try and tease this out....

1) I did NOT say I saw someone who believed it at first as "morally dubious". That's the point you're missing/avoiding.

2) I did say that when the evidence showed it was a falsehood, those who previously were baying(and primal screaming) for blood against the wronged, should have acknowledged this. An apology would be a stretch too far I suppose as the mantra goes women are always victims and never wrong.

You are actually joking here? I hope.

Good god, debating with a "feminist" mindset is akin to trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

yes adjust the meaning of your point now, no such nuance before but now there are exceptions to the rule when needed. It's okay for you to assume what everyone else did but not okay for the groups you dislike because they have a platform and could voice their distaste for it louder than you did. No legal recourse, the university probably investigated in terms of rules and sensitivity to the case and let the individuals who were not and were never named know that they were exonerated, case closed apart from if it is inconvenient to your world view. okay for you not okay for others. Again no one was defamed, or arrested because they didn't exist. If the police investigate a crime they don't apologise to the suspects after the case is closed your whole premise is absolute nonsense because it never happened, therefore there is absolutely nothing to apologise for.

cloudatlas

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

This despite it could very well have ruined people's careers. But does she care?
Nope.

There was no career to ruin because it didn't happen. Yes, no women came forward because.... it didn't happen.

Sounds like she was happy that people like Wibbs and co. who assumed that it did happen were supportive of the 'alleged' victims.

Will I Am Not

The amount of times I've started reading a thread and thought "but this only happens in America" only for those very types to show up and prove me wrong.

retro:electro

cloudatlas wrote: »

There was no career to ruin because it didn't happen. Yes, no women came forward because.... it didn't happen.

Sounds like she was happy that people like Wibbs and co. who assumed that it did happen were supportive of the 'alleged' victims.

She's falsely perpetuating a myth about a UCD sex ring. It's almost as if she wants it to have happened because it fits the agenda she loves to push- she's perverse. I wouldn't want to be attached to that myth, would you? That's potentially career ruining, mental health destroying, and socially destructive.
You're just making a fool of yourself now, tbqh.

cloudatlas

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Because many of them CONTINUED to peddle the story, months after it was proven false-because the SU's pushed for 'consent' classes-when they were based on a lie.
That's why folks want an apology.

Consent classes are a good idea no matter. One in 12 female students are victims of rape or attempted rape http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-students-sexual-assault-survey-2580175-Feb2016/

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

She's falsely perpetuating a myth about a UCD sex ring. I wouldn't want to be attached to that myth, would you? That's potentially career ruining, mental health destroying, and socially destructive.
You're just making a fool of yourself now, tbqh.

The UCD college Tribune printed the story, the national media picked up on it, there is a whole thread of people saying it was abhorrent but... it's all Louise O'neils fault and she should apologise because people on After hours hate her and created a big thread where they all frothed at the mouth for several pages. Your post was phrased in such a way to ingratiate yourself, there was no question there really or interest in hearing other points of view, you should go to the ladies lounge and post a similar thread because you clearly want to hear other view points.

retro:electro

cloudatlas wrote: »

The UCD college Tribune printed the story, the national media picked up on it, there is a whole thread of people saying it was abhorrent but... it's all Louise O'neils fault and she should apologise because people on After hours hate her and created a big thread where they all frothed at the mouth for several pages. Your post was phrased in such a way to ingratiate yourself, there was no question there really or interest in hearing other points of view, you should go to the ladies lounge and post a similar thread because you clearly want to hear other view points.

LON is being brought up because she is a "feminist" who persisted in perpetuating the myth long after it had been debunked. Ya ya pat on the back for me I'm great. Would ya ever go away with yourself. You've been proven wrong time and time again and you're still rambling on trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

RabbleRouser2k

Demforeigners wrote: »

Your tears say more than real evidence ever could.

Feminism in its modern form is a discriminatory hate group. They are all United by their collective hatred for men and not for the betterment of women everywhere, but to create and sustain a matriarchal society. Thankfully it's confined to the Internet for now but who knows how long this will last as these influences are creeping in to our educational facilities and our national newspapers are giving a platform to highly toxic but influential hatebags.

The more ridicule the better I say before they do real and lasting damage to men everywhere.

I believe in real equality and I will always stand up for what is right for both genders. I am therefore an egalitarian and if you believe in real equality you will be too.

'That is assault-that is assault!!!!'
-- Shrill feminist lawyer

I agree-mock it forever and the day. I'm all for a woman president, in the US I mean, but not because 'she's a woman'.
Instead we had the same 'Farenheit 9/11' type prosletysing, telling us this woman was the right one for the job-while bullying and mocking the other guy.
Anyone who dared question Hillary was accused of misogyny.
Despite far worse being done to John McCain, a US military veteran whose bones were broken, whose body was practically destroyed, and yet was openly mocked when he went agains Obama. Even ppl were questioning if he would survive the four years.
And who defended his opponent when nasty and harsh things were said against him.
And conceded his defeat with dignity-didn't claim sexism, white privilge, or misandry.

......... wrote: »

Absolutely not. A good article educates and informs, it lays out all the facts, and arguments, including the ones that the journalist might not like, and people make up their own mind. The journalism we are normally presented with now, takes only one or two facts at best, spins them, and then shoves the opinion and agenda permitted by the billionaire media corporation's owner down the readers throat. I go out of my way to read well written articles and facts that challenge my initial opinions and assumptions, and as a result I get a much better understanding of issues. I don't want to hear an echo chamber, but it's getting harder and harder to find reliable fully truthful journalism. Then again maybe I'm in a minority in that regard, and if I am, that would explain a lot.

I remember one a few years ago (there was one in Ireland, but this case was in the UK) regarding a woman who was seeking to have frozen embryos implanted in her womb. Her and her husband had been planning to have kids through IVF, had the treatment, but then the marriage split and the embryos were left in limbo. Well, she wanted to have kids, he didn't want to be a dad with her. Well, she went to court, all the way to the european court too, to try and gain rights to the embryos. And each case she lost-(not without folks like Miriam O'Callaghan 'wishing her luck').
One female columnist, who went against the grain, of the others 'wishing her luck' said 'if you support a woman's right to not be a mother, you should support a man's right to not be a father'.
I wish I remember her name, tbh, because she was one of the few rational folks out there at the time. She gave a great insight and I completely agreed with her-at that point, while the lady in the court case had my sympathies, the case had irked me greatly and being a young fella at the time, I couldn't quite put my finger on why. That article opened up my eyes a lot.

mzungu

cloudatlas wrote: »

Consent classes are a good idea no matter. One in 12 female students are victims of rape or attempted rape http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-students-sexual-assault-survey-2580175-Feb2016/

Are consent classes the answer? We don't have anti-murder/anti-robbery/anti-violence/anti-fraud classes, why is their the belief that consent classes will stop rapists?

I think we should have proper sex education classes (for both) in primary and secondary school. That would be a positive step forward.

But, I doubt rapists would be paying much attention, or even attending, consent classes.

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

LON is being brought up because she persisted in perpetuating the myth long after it had been debunked. Ya ya pat on the back for me I'm great. Would ya ever go away with yourself.

Like another poster just said she responded to the good nature of other people for reacting strongly against something that we all thought was abhorrent at the time because it really sounded bloody awful.. but it didn't happen. Yes I would say this thread is a massive pat on the back for you

Wibbs

cloudatlas wrote: »

yes adjust the meaning of your point now, no such nuance before but now there are exceptions to the rule when needed.

Nope, that's projection on your part.

It's okay for you to assume what everyone else did but not okay for the groups you dislike because they have a platform and could voice their distaste for it louder than you did. No legal recourse, the university probably investigated in terms of rules and sensitivity to the case and let the individuals who were not and were never named know that they were exonerated, case closed apart from if it is inconvenient to your world view. okay for you not okay for others. Again no one was defamed, or arrested because they didn't exist. If the police investigate a crime they don't apologise to the suspects after the case is closed your whole premise is absolute nonsense because it never happened, therefore there is absolutely nothing to apologise for.

An entire faculty and men in general were put in the dock for no reason and yet you're "thinking" is that this isn't worrisome? Fcuk me, that's some moral compass you don't have there. And all too common among your current "feminists".

if it is inconvenient to your world view

Yep, there it is, the Atomic Powered Feminist Irony Bypass in full effect.

There was no career to ruin because it didn't happen. Yes, no women came forward because.... it didn't happen.

And again. That you can't seem to grasp this is odd, bordering on amusing at this point.

it's all Louise O'neils fault and she should apologise because people on After hours hate her and created a big thread where they all frothed at the mouth for several pages.

That country mile of yours is growing with every post.

Consent classes are a good idea no matter. One in 12 female students are victims of rape or attempted rape

1 in 12? There's me thinking 1 in 4/6/8. I do wish minds could be made up on the matter of precisely how much Victim is going around.

Wibbs

anna080 wrote: »

trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

How dare you come here with your "heteronormative" metaphors! You patriarchist you!

RabbleRouser2k

cloudatlas wrote: »

There was no career to ruin because it didn't happen. Yes, no women came forward because.... it didn't happen.

Sounds like she was happy that people like Wibbs and co. who assumed that it did happen were supportive of the 'alleged' victims.

What are you on about? You're flip flopping.

cloudatlas wrote: »

Consent classes are a good idea no matter. One in 12 female students are victims of rape or attempted rape http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-students-sexual-assault-survey-2580175-Feb2016/

No, they're not. And no, they're not. The statistics you cite are not supported by any organisation, not Rainn, not the FBI, nowhere.
And the number goes from 1 in 12, to 1 in 4, to 1 in 5- but it's still only .04 percent or less.
Perpetuating 1 in 4 or 1 in 12 is a dangerous myth.